Why should I give two craps about stories like this

[Bubbler]

Was perusing one of my news feeds and came across this from the New York Times on the “Sinners” film.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/business/media/sinners-box-office.html
If this appeared in Variety or another trade mag, I’d totally understand it, but why does the NYT think that this matters to anyone other outside of industry execs?

I don’t give two ****s whether a movie, or anything else that doesn’t directly my life, recoups their budget. It’s an expensive business and those that engage in it know there are risks. Their risks don’t matter to me one bit. Their problem, not one that interests me.

This crosses over into sports too. Now, stories like team is unprofitable = can’t spend on talent? Relevant.

Stories like auto racing team owners had to spend extra on new technology and are bitching about it? Not relevant to me. They knew the risk. (Insert Airplane meme here.)

I don’t know. I think media wastes a lot of time on stories like this. They’re of low interest and low impact.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Was perusing one of my news feeds and came across this from the New York Times on the "Sinners" film.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/business/media/sinners-box-office.html
If this appeared in Variety or another trade mag, I'd totally understand it, but why does the NYT think that this matters to anyone other outside of industry execs?

I don't give two ****s whether a movie, or anything else that doesn't directly my life, recoups their budget. It's an expensive business and those that engage in it know there are risks. Their risks don't matter to me one bit. Their problem, not one that interests me.

This crosses over into sports too. Now, stories like team is unprofitable = can't spend on talent? Relevant.

Stories like auto racing team owners had to spend extra on new technology and are bitching about it? Not relevant to me. They knew the risk. (Insert Airplane meme here.)

I don't know. I think media wastes a lot of time on stories like this. They're of low interest and low impact.

I'm with you on this, and I will throw in anything involving TV ratings.

We're a couple of weeks out from the "OMG, the networks would HATE an OKC - Cleveland final!" discussions. I don't understand why anyone cares in the slightest. I don't find the future ad rates for ABC to be worth discussion. (And I say that as someone who has worked in TV for more then 3 decades. I produce a weekly TV show. I have no idea how it does in the ratings. I have never looked, and I get the overnight ratings in my inbox every morning.)

 

[Bubbler]

I'm with you on this, and I will throw in anything involving TV ratings.

We're a couple of weeks out from the "OMG, the networks would HATE an OKC - Cleveland final!" discussions. I don't understand why anyone cares in the slightest. I don't find the future ad rates for ABC to be worth discussion. (And I say that as someone who has worked in TV for more then 3 decades. I produce a weekly TV show. I have no idea how it does in the ratings. I have never looked, and I get the overnight ratings in my inbox every morning.)

God yes. TV ratings numbers are such an overblown thing and almost never reported with proper context.

I remember when USA Today printed the weekly grid back in the 80s. It was cool. It was fun to look at. The public at-large was largely ignorant of ratings in the first place, other than as a vague concept, so it was a novelty. A window into that world. It was something different.

Then it began to draw notice of the media, and still on a surface level, fans of shows or sports gradually began to partly assess their enjoyment and/or success of things, especially in sports, based on the ratings. I was a weird kind of groupthink. I watch both very popular sports and niche ones and I've never once cared what their rating was.

It's not that there's not relevance to ratings, there is, but it gets over-focused on, and very rarely gets reported on intelligently.

And ratings were cool to look at in the three and four-network dominant era because it was a closed shop. Think of it like current pro sports in that sense.

Now ratings are watered down so much by the myriad choices viewers have as to almost completely lost their meaning. It's more like college sports from a comparison sense. A big dog like CBS getting grouped into the same category as super niche channels like QVC TV or Tennis Channel. That's to say nothing of streaming services syphoning the pool further, both pay and free streaming like Pluto or Tubi. (Both have their charms.)

A major pet peeve are the stories that compare ratings by era. Look at how bad (fill in the blank show or sport) is compared to 1970. Or 1990. Or 2000. Or 2015. Yeah, ****heads, the ratings are going to be far lower when the viewing choices grew exponentially from one era to the next.

Same thing when daily sports are compared to weekly sports. NFL ratings are high no matter what, but of course they're going to dwarf MLB or NBA when those sports are on almost everyday as opposed to once a week.

I've always thought it would be interesting to take, say, one week of collective baseball games for a week in a market vs. the NFL game of that market for that week. The NFL would win, but it would paint a more accurate picture of interest.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Why do ratings matter to a league in the early years of a long contract?

 

[waterytart]

Will you tolerate these stories in major media cities like New York and Los Angeles? Since the first example was from the NYT, I guess not.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Why do ratings matter to a league in the early years of a long contract?

They help set the ad rates for the networks. If viewership goes up, ABC can charge more for a :30 commercial. So, in the short term they don't mean much to the league, but they matter to the network.

Now, do you care what ABC is charging Hyundai for a commercial? I do not.

 

[tapintoamerica]

Thanks. The interesting thing is that the ratings get cast as a problem for the league.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

Thanks. The interesting thing is that the ratings get cast as a problem for the league.

That’s true.

Also, it’s almost always about the NBA, a league that is in great shape. Remember the breathless stories of the NBA’s plummeting ratings earlier this year? By Christmas the ratings were up from last year.

 

[Webster]

I think stories about the ability of certain types of movie to be made are interesting

 

[Bubbler]

Will you tolerate these stories in major media cities like New York and Los Angeles? Since the first example was from the NYT, I guess not.

Not really. It’s trade publication stuff.

 

[MileHigh]

Networks/stations are going to pay whatever the advertisers want to pay. It's a nice weekly PR release and the ratings game has changed with out-of-home being factored in.

 

[Bubbler]

Ben Stiller and I … of the same mind kinda.

 

[TrooperBari]

Here's a thought: what if the studios don't want it to be seen as a success and their PR departments are pushing this narrative?

 

[cyclingwriter2]

Was perusing one of my news feeds and came across this from the New York Times on the "Sinners" film.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/20/business/media/sinners-box-office.html
If this appeared in Variety or another trade mag, I'd totally understand it, but why does the NYT think that this matters to anyone other outside of industry execs?

I don't give two ****s whether a movie, or anything else that doesn't directly my life, recoups their budget. It's an expensive business and those that engage in it know there are risks. Their risks don't matter to me one bit. Their problem, not one that interests me.

This crosses over into sports too. Now, stories like team is unprofitable = can't spend on talent? Relevant.

Stories like auto racing team owners had to spend extra on new technology and are bitching about it? Not relevant to me. They knew the risk. (Insert Airplane meme here.)

I don't know. I think media wastes a lot of time on stories like this. They're of low interest and low impact.

Actually read this story last night before you posted. Actually found it looking for information on Sinners.

Does it have impact on my life? No.

But is it interesting to me? Yes.

Why? A vampire movie set in the 1930s with a primarily Black cast was the most watched movie in America over the Easter weekend. That’s a snapshot into the psyche of our country. Being curious, one has to wonder what that means. That’s what these kinds of stories try to tell.

For example, my son and I watched the Disney “bomb” John Carter this week. It wasn’t great, but it did $284 milllion at the box office…people watched this movie. I wasn’t one of them. Now I am.

As for ratings of tv shows, again they are look at American demographics. “Everyone” watched Game of Thrones. No, a small sliver of America watched game of thrones. But that sliver has a lot of clout and cache in the world of media.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

I'm with you on this, and I will throw in anything involving TV ratings.

We're a couple of weeks out from the "OMG, the networks would HATE an OKC - Cleveland final!" discussions. I don't understand why anyone cares in the slightest. I don't find the future ad rates for ABC to be worth discussion. (And I say that as someone who has worked in TV for more then 3 decades. I produce a weekly TV show. I have no idea how it does in the ratings. I have never looked, and I get the overnight ratings in my inbox every morning.)

Some of that has to do more with not liking the executives in charge of the sport and/or TV industry. David Stern always was perceived to be a little biased towards the big markets/traditional powers (Celtics, Lakers, Bulls, Knicks, etc.). So hoping for, say, a Kings/Raptors finals was seen as one for the little guy against Stern and ESPN.

 

[Bubbler]

Here's a thought: what if the studios don't want it to be seen as a success and their PR departments are pushing this narrative?

Now that's interesting. Good pull, Trooper.

 

[Della9250]

I guess we didn't need to give any craps -- $18 million in the black after two weeks

 

[Webster]

Other creators do get the rights to their movies after a period of time. Not to say that Sinners won’t be worth something in 25 years (like a video game), but it almost certainly isn’t a franchise or something which is likely to have a massive value.

 

[Della9250]

Other creators do get the rights to their movies after a period of time. Not to say that Sinners won't be worth something in 25 years (like a video game), but it almost certainly isn't a franchise or something which is likely to have a massive value.

It feels like there is definitely going to be a prequel about the twins' time in Chicago

 

[britwrit]

Such a shame it wasn't very good, especially not as a drama and not really as a vampire movie either. If they'd slapped a "From Dusk to Dawn" tag on it, I wouldn't have been the least surprised.

It was an ambitious idea but fell flat on execution. The problem I had with the media coverage - and I'm looking at you, New Yorker profile of Ryan Coogler - is that the film was almost universalist praised as a new classic. Eh...